On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.[4]

Brand's conference remarks are transcribed in the Whole Earth Review (May 1985, p. 49) and a later form appears in his The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT:[5]

Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. ...That tension will not go away.[4]

According to historian Adrian Johns, the slogan expresses a view that had already been articulated in the mid-20th century by Norbert Wiener, Michael Polanyi and Arnold Plant, who advocated the free communication of scientific knowledge, and specifically criticized the patent system.[6]

The various forms of the original statement are ambiguous: the slogan can be used to argue the benefits of propertied information, of liberated/free/open information, or of both. It can be taken merely as an expression of an amoral fact of information-science: once information has passed to a new location outside of the source's control there is no way of ensuring it is not propagated further, and therefore will naturally tend towards a state where that information is widely distributed. Much of its force is due to the anthropomorphic metaphor that imputes desire to information. In 1990 Richard Stallman restated the concept normatively, without the anthropomorphization:

I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By 'free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses... When information is generally useful, redistributing it makes humanity wealthier no matter who is distributing and no matter who is receiving.[8]

Stallman's reformulation incorporated a political stance into Brand's value-neutral observation of social trends.

According to this philosophy, hackers, crackers, and phreakers are liberators of information which is being held hostage by agents demanding money for its release. Other participants in this network include Cypherpunks who educate people to use public-key cryptography to protect the privacy of their messages from corporate or governmental snooping and programmers who write free software and open sourcecode. Still others create Free-Nets allowing users to gain access to computer resources for which they would otherwise need an account. They might also break copyright law etc. by swapping music, movies, or other copyrighted materials over the Internet.[citation needed]

Chelsea Manning is alleged to have said "Information should be free"[9] to Adrian Lamo when explaining a rationale for US government documents to be released to WikiLeaks. The narrative goes on with Manning wondering if she is a "'hacker', 'cracker', 'hacktivist', 'leaker' or what".[10]

In the Fall Revolution series of science-fiction books, anarchist sci-fi author Ken Macleod riffs and puns on the expression by writing about entities composed of information actually "wanting", as in desiring, freedom and the scheming of several human characters with differing political and ideological agenda, to facilitate or disrupt these entities' quest for freedom.

^Johns, Adrian (2009), Piracy. The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates, The University of Chicago Press, p. 429, ISBN978-0-226-40118-8, We still live amid the legacies of these mid-century debates about science and society. We inherit their terms, and the culture of science that shapes our world is the one left to us by them. If we think ‘information wants to be free,’ then we voice a sentiment championed by Wiener, Polanyi and Plant